Mr. Speaker, the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan this spring reminded us that the nuclear arms issue was not resolved, although the cold war was over.
For more than half a century, in fact, humanity has been living in constant fear of another holocaust, and we are still sitting on the powder keg of heavy nuclear armament.
Since this is now a threat from all sides, all possible steps must be taken to curb proliferation. This is why we are today debating the act to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
Over the years, Canada has played a vital role in the implementation of various practices to ensure the security of the human race. Most recently, it has been involved in developing the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Arms Treaty, and played a pioneer role in having land mines banned.
Canadian and Quebec public opinion is behind all of the Canadian government's efforts, and Canada's anti-nuclear action is supported by a sizeable portion of the population.
An Angus Reid poll released last spring gives us some very clear indications on this. When respondents were asked whether nuclear weapons made the world more or less dangerous, three times as many Canadians and Quebeckers opted for “more dangerous”. No doubt about it, Canadians and Quebeckers approve of all initiatives toward nuclear disarmament, including the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty we have before us today.
By voting in favour of the implementation of the comprehensive test-ban treaty, the Bloc Quebecois feels we are taking another important step along the path to disarmament. Furthermore, in recent weeks, two new international instruments have reached the point of ratification needed for their implementation and have joined the panoply of agreements that are bringing us closer to a sustainable peace. I refer to the anti-personnel mines treaty we have already mentioned and the treaty banning the use of anti-aircraft weapons.
Once this new treaty is ratified, we must continue to work for disarmament by ensuring progress in three other areas: the ban on the production of fissionable material for nuclear arms, the non-military use of atomic energy and the non-proliferation of light weapons.
A few weeks ago, Canada's permanent ambassador to the UN for disarmament was appointed chair of the committee negotiating an international agreement on the production of fissionable material.
Within the context of the conference on disarmament, 60 countries are prepared to begin discussions. As we know, the conference on disarmament is where the chemical weapons convention and the comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, which we are discussing today, were negotiated. If the conference manages to ban fissionable materials for nuclear weapons, we will have taken another step toward nuclear disarmament.
I also want to raise a problem frequently raised in this House, which an agreement on the banning of fissionable materials for nuclear weapons would never resolve. It is the use by the military of technology developed for civilian purposes. Canada's behaviour is not entirely blameless in this matter, and while it denies it, our hands are not totally clean.
Although Canada never intended to become involved in nuclear proliferation, its atomic energy program has unfortunately been used to create bombs. According to information from the Canadian Nuclear Association, India apparently has enough plutonium to build 455 atomic bombs, if all the plutonium available to it is added up, whether it comes from Canadian reactors or was acquired specifically to build bombs.
Given that 8 of the 10 Indian nuclear reactors are Candu reactors, we should take a look at our role as exporter of nuclear technology.
The only nuclear reactor in Pakistan is a Candu and, according to some new data, Pakistan may have the capacity to manufacture 100 nuclear bombs.
If that is the case, should Canada not take action and look further into this to prevent our nuclear energy program from being used for military purposes? I shall not get into the whole issue of transporting and stocking radioactive waste here in Canada, which is another problem Canada will have to address very soon.
Finally, the signatories will also have to put an end to the conventional arms race, which makes for a growing trade in developing countries, at the expense of economic, social and cultural development.
Let us bear in mind that, in the 1980s, export of light and heavy weaponry to the third world represented 70% of the industrialized nations' total foreign trade. The international community clearly has a responsibility toward the have not nations that have grown poorer so that industrialized nations and arms lobbies could get even richer.
In the 1990s, in spite of a substantial drop in the export of heavy weaponry to developing countries, light weapons have been proliferating at an alarming rate. One analysis shows the following:
From 1980 to 1995, 10 African states with a total population of 150 million were torn by civil war. The death toll was between 3.8 and 6.9 million, almost all victims of light weapons—Western leaders are apparently more concerned by arms stockpiling in third-world hot spots, where they are asked to send peacekeeping forces. On the one hand, rich countries try to put an end to conflicts while, on the other hand, they continue to supply weapons to the belligerents.
Time has come for this contradiction to stop.
Again, however, action is required and there are solutions. The ratification of the land mines treaty is one example that gives us hope that a multilateral small arms agreement will be signed.
This summer, one of the concerns the Minister of Foreign Affairs voiced about the security of humankind had to do with the small arms threat. I urge the minister not just to work with NGOs, but to put pressure on the countries that import and export small arms in order to prevent their proliferation.
Humanity wants to be solidly on the road to peace. It is with conviction and great hope that I support Bill C-52, an act to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
If Canada becomes a member of the UN Security Council this week, the Bloc Quebecois hopes it will keep its guard up. It would be unfortunate if Canada were to be content to point to its track record as a defender of peace and human rights. Furthermore, current events provide us with frequent examples of the dangers of resting on one's laurels.
In this year marking the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, much attention has been given to the role of a Canadian, John. P. Humphrey, in writing it. But a recent article by jurist William Schabas reminds us that Canada very nearly abstained from voting in favour of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948. Canada's good reputation must be earned anew every day.
Canada must actively demonstrate its commitment to peace and human rights. The Bloc Quebecois sees the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty as another step on the road to the security of humanity and lasting world peace. But it is not the last, as we have seen.
I would go even further and say that Canada must use all the means and tribunals at its disposal in order to banish nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, before life itself is extinguished on this planet, accidentally or otherwise.
Here, as in many other areas, Canada must never stop demonstrating its courage, will and conviction if it is to continue to live up to its reputation. Canadians and Quebeckers expect nothing less.
